The actions of Nazi Germany appear to contain important lessons for humanity about the use and abuse of power, the insidious nature of hatred and fear, and of course the importance of democratic institutions in protecting us from the whims of authoritarian impulses. Not everyone learns the same lessons, though.

In Pope Benedict XVI: A Biography of Joseph Ratzinger, John L. Allen Jr. writes about the lessons Ratzinger appears to have learned his experiences under the Nazi regime in Germany:

Having seen fascism in action, Ratzinger today believes that the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesial totalitarianism. In other words, he believes the Catholic church serves the cause of human freedom by restricting freedom in its internal life, thereby remaining clear about what it teaches and believes. It is a position he defends ably, but it is strikingly different from the conclusions of many of Ratzinger’s German theological peers who also lived through the Nazi era.

[...]

Ratzinger’s reading of the war omits what many people would consider its main lesson, namely, the dangers of blind obedience. Millions of Germans like the Ratzingers, who passed Nazi prisons on their way to school and work, who watched Jews driven out of their communities, who knew that political opponents of the Nazis such as Hans Braxenthaler die for their resistance, nevertheless did little to stop what was happening. In this regard, Ratzinger is no more culpable than any other decent German citizen. The point is that many Germans failed to question, to dissent, and where necessary to fight back.

Curiously, Pope John Paul II appears to have taken similar lessons away from his experience not under the Germans, but under the communist dictatorship of Poland: in order to effectively combat enemies on the outside, he believed it was necessary to achieve absolute unity of purpose and ideology on the inside. Dissent within the ranks only serves to weaken the group and weakening the group serves the interests of external enemies, not the group itself; therefore, dissenters in the groups must be regarded as being part of the same category as external enemies rather than group members.

Allen contrasts Ratzinger’s conclusions derived from the Nazi era with those of Bernard Häring, a Redemptorist priest and moral theologian:

[H]e argued for a morality based not upon rules and limits but on the responsible exercise of human freedom. This approach was rooted in his perceptions of the war. In his autobiography, Häring wrote, “Unfortunately, I also experienced the most absurd obedience by Christians toward a criminal regime. And that too radically affected my thinking and acting as a moral theologian. After the war I returned to moral theology with the firm decision to teach it so that its core concept would not be obedience but responsibility, the courage to be responsible.”

Joseph Ratzinger was a theologian himself, the first in a long time to become pope, but his moral theology has been one of total obedience to higher authorities. This is what Bernard Häring came to realize was one of the fatal flaws at the heart of Nazi ideology; it is also one of the fatal flaws at the heart of all authoritarian ideologies. The ruthless elimination of internal dissent and variety will only, at best, produce the mere appearance of unanimity and strength. In the long run, though, it will inevitably reduce the ability of the ideology to adapt to changing circumstances, to deal with novel situations, and to correct errors.

It’s not unlike biological evolution, really. Genetic diversity promotes long-term survival because is increases the chances that a species will be able to adapt to its environment. Similarly, social, cultural, and ideological diversity can allow a community to adapt to changes in its environment. Too much diversity may of course prevent the social cohesion necessary to remain a community; too little diversity, however, will ensure the community’s eventual downfall.

This appears to be the direction that John Paul II and Benedict XVI may be taking the Catholic Church. It’s unlikely that an institution like this could disappear entirely, but its influence and power could grow so weak that it becomes a shadow of its former self. In order to survive with anything like it current strength, it must encourage diversity rather than drive it away, learn to appreciate the value of dissent and a “loyal opposition” rather than treating dissenters as little more than pawns of external forces wishing to destroy the church itself.

 

Read More Book Notes from the Book Reviews on this site.